"Abusing" the swear filter

[Raistlin]

I think Doomy was more insulting to Britain than Shlup.

Shlup: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=draconian

There is a "case by case" basis for just about everything, especially swearing. If you honestly think we've decided there's some rule where we must get rid of all swearing, you're just plain wrong.

However, it appears that certain staff members are following that policy - which, as several people have pointed out, contradicts the Forum Rules and oral policy of the Staff.

You said the same thing I said, but, yes I remember Kane's sig. Kane's sig was removed because of lack of knowledge on the part of a couple of moderators, and removed perminantly because he reacted inappropriately to that. And if I hear one more person say that the entire staff should apologise or something after being attacked like that over a mistake due to lack of knowledge of one or two people, I'm gonna... make things pink or something.

You don't need to apologize for anything; I wasn't remotely inferring that. I was merely stating that, before that whole mess was sorted out by intelligent-minded people like Doomy-kins and I(:rolleyes2), several staff members used various excuses and general staff-rules to justify their mistaken action. Which was, as was pointed out then, the wrong thing to do.

I agree with pretty much everything you posted there, Shlup - I just don't feel that the application from the Staff is uneven and, in some circumstances, blatantly contradicts that.

What I'm seeing is:
"You should do things case by case." - We do.
"You shouldn't edit out every swear word; some are used in an appropriate context." - We don't.
"You can change everyone's post to say they're gay, but that's wrong." - Good thing we don't do that then.
"Editing out a swear that is already covered by the swear filter is stupid." - No one does that.

1. Some staff members seem to not do things case-by-case.
2. Some staff members seem to edit out every swear word.
3. Agreed.
4. We've all seen it done. However, from BoB's response, this is already been discussed and decided upon in Staff. So no one does that anymore, which I think was Bleys's problem with it.

Swears are powerful words, and when some people are given such power they will abuse it, which is what I was touching on earlier.

Or, when it's filtered, it gives them the misguided notion that they can swear however much they want, as it will all change to skulls(or smurf) anyway.

[Doomgaze]

For those of you playing along at home, I said that the Commonwealth is more educated, in general, than the US. Let's get it straight just who it is I am insulting, ok?

[Raistlin]

Oops, I read it backwards. Yeah, I'd agree with that. Americans in general don't like words longer than two syllables.

[Jojee]

Good thing I'm Chinese! *whew*

Edit: Urgh. What am I saying. Wesly, you're Chinese.

[Citizen Bleys]

Swears are powerful words...

Because you give them power. 50 years ago, saying "damn" would get you ostracized from your community. Now they say it every day on TV. Why? Because people started saying it, and got desensitized. Now nobody gives a damn if you say damn. It's just like Carlin's sketch on how anything can be funny if you don't have a rod wedged in your buttocks. By laughing at something, you deny something's power over you. By getting your panties in a knot over something minor, you're only affirming that power and tightening its grip on you.

[Jojee]

Actually I went to a Christian school in 5th-6th grade, and they cared pretty damn much if you said damn In fact, they got pretty mad if you said darn. ...And you had to answer all the questions, "Yes, mamn" or "No, mamn"! Couldn't just say "okay" or "yes." *falls over* Boy, back in the days... *^_^*

[Shlup]

No one does that? What about the people who have got official warnings for using filtered words "too much" (meaning 3 times, which would be a good example of degree being decided after the fact by a staffer with a grudge) even though the words are already hidden by the filter?

Editing out an already filtered swear and warning someone for excessive swearing are two totally different issues. Accusing someone of deciding how much swearing is over the line based strictly on a grudge is a pretty heavy accusation. Where have you seen this happening? I'd like to hear about it.

For those of you playing along at home, I said that the Commonwealth is more educated, in general, than the US. Let's get it straight just who it is I am insulting, ok?

I'M EDUMACATED! *pokes your eye out*

Because you give them power. 50 years ago, saying "damn" would get you ostracized from your community. Now they say it every day on TV. Why? Because people started saying it, and got desensitized. Now nobody gives a damn if you say damn. It's just like Carlin's sketch on how anything can be funny if you don't have a rod wedged in your buttocks. By laughing at something, you deny something's power over you. By getting your panties in a knot over something minor, you're only affirming that power and tightening its grip on you.

So are you saying our goal should be to revolutionize society by taking power from curse words? I mean, I agree, the words have power if you give them power, but most people do give them power so, uh... I don't know what I was trying to say. Mayhaps you should be counseling the staff members who're so offended by swear words personally, since they're all avoiding this thread anyway.

I think Doomy was more insulting to Britain than Shlup.

Shlup: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=draconian

I finally taught myself to spell refrigerator the other day.

However, it appears that certain staff members are following that policy - which, as several people have pointed out, contradicts the Forum Rules and oral policy of the Staff.

Well then that's something the members should bring up on a case by case basis, instead of letting it go in one big accusation with no examples because I don't see this happening, and that makes it a little hard to fix.

You don't need to apologize for anything; I wasn't remotely inferring that. I was merely stating that, before that whole mess was sorted out by intelligent-minded people like Doomy-kins and I(:rolleyes2), several staff members used various excuses and general staff-rules to justify their mistaken action. Which was, as was pointed out then, the wrong thing to do.

Bringing up things that are over and done to make a point... You're worse than a girlfriend! Why don't you just bring up that time I forgot Valentines Day next?

I agree with pretty much everything you posted there, Shlup - I just don't feel that the application from the Staff is uneven and, in some circumstances, blatantly contradicts that.

I would say that's one of the downfalls of doing things on a case by case basis. Some people's case by case gets the same "omg swearing is teh sux" every time. If you have a problem with this, I would advise you to bring it up with the staff members privately. I think you would get better results that way.

1. Some staff members seem to not do things case-by-case.

I disagree. They just get the same result for each case. Its part of being human, having different morals and opinions. But, like I said, I think you should bring your feelings up with them yourself.

2. Some staff members seem to edit out every swear word.

Some staff members don't like swearing. At all. Ever. If you see a particular case you have a problem with, I consider it your responsibility to report it then, so we know exactly what post you're talking about, and can address it. But, again, your opinion is different, so maybe most staff members will agree with the edit. I get the impression that the main issue of most, if not all, of your issues with any forum staff is that we're all different people with different opinions.

We're not a giant computer brain running the forum from some warehouse. Sowwy.

3. Agreed.

We'll see how long that lasts. >_>

4. We've all seen it done. However, from BoB's response, this is already been discussed and decided upon in Staff. So no one does that anymore, which I think was Bleys's problem with it.

*yoink* happens. *shrug*

Or, when it's filtered, it gives them the misguided notion that they can swear however much they want, as it will all change to skulls(or smurf) anyway.

Both yours and BoB's statements are true. Unfortunately for you, we choose to deal with the issue one way, while you would deal with it another. Sux 4 u!

EDIT BY BoB: Please do not go around the swear filter. This is an official warning.

[Citizen Bleys]

Accusing someone of deciding how much swearing is over the line based strictly on a grudge is a pretty heavy accusation. Where have you seen this happening? I'd like to hear about it.

I'm sure you would--but we both know that trying to prove that something was based on a grudge, even when it's plain as day, is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall--and if I ever say that the sky is blue without documented, signed evidence to prove it, we both know that it'd just get dismissed out of hand with some nonsense rhetoric that obfuscates the actual issue without ever addressing it.

So are you saying our goal should be to revolutionize society by taking power from curse words?

I can't feed all the hungry in Africa just by wishing it, either. It doesn't mean that I should condone the actions of corrupt governments that are taking the food out of their peoples' mouths so that the rich can get richer.

Mayhaps you should be counseling the staff members who're so offended by swear words personally, since they're all avoiding this thread anyway.

You can't counsel someone who won't listen.

Why don't you just bring up that time I forgot Valentines Day next?

Or better yet, just get everybody to forget Valentine's day every year.

If you have a problem with this, I would advise you to bring it up with the staff members privately. I think you would get better results that way.

That would be the most efficient way to get ignored.

They just get the same result for each case.

Well, then, it's not bloody well a matter of degree, then, is it? It's saying one thing and doing another. That's called deception.

I consider it your responsibility to report it then, so we know exactly what post you're talking about, and can ignore it.

And we all know how far reporting posts gets. Thank the gods for the Ignore function.

[Dr Unne]

Should we abolish manners?

[Del Murder]

Bleys, are you just having some fun, or is something really bugging you? I can see Raistlin doing his thing, but you really sounds like something is eating at you. I read the majority of the posts at these forums, and try to stay up on the current issues, and I don't see evidence of the stuff you're talking about. If you're just letting off steam then that's ok, we all have bad days. Feel free to air your grievences, I won't judge you because of it, if that matters at all to you. Otherwise, I'd like to know where this is coming from.

[Shlup]

I'm sure you would--but we both know that trying to prove that something was based on a grudge, even when it's plain as day, is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall--and if I ever say that the sky is blue without documented, signed evidence to prove it, we both know that it'd just get dismissed out of hand with some nonsense rhetoric that obfuscates the actual issue without ever addressing it.

You may view these instances as a grudge, but perhaps there's a different reason. I can't say either way because you have no examples to support your complaint.

I can't feed all the hungry in Africa just by wishing it, either. It doesn't mean that I should condone the actions of corrupt governments that are taking the food out of their peoples' mouths so that the rich can get richer.

I don't think that discouraging swearing is making anyone richer.

You can't counsel someone who won't listen.

I'm sure they'd have an equally fun time trying to get you to see their point of view. But you're convinced that allowing people to swear is the best course of action, so wouldn't listen to them either. Seems like you should either try, agree to disagree, or just drop it. There's no way to force your point of view.

Or better yet, just get everybody to forget Valentine's day every year.

But I like my annual Lemon Heads. :/

That would be the most efficient way to get ignored.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but, as it is, I'm pretty sure all the staff members you're talking about are ignoring this thread anyway, chalking it up to another one of Raistlin's "complain because I'm bored" threads. Is there a way to please you short of just letting people swear? Seriously. I don't think you even know what you want.

Well, then, it's not bloody well a matter of degree, then, is it? It's saying one thing and doing another. That's called deception.

To them any degree of swearing is too high of a degree, and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but to you any degree of swearing is not too high of a degree, so you would get consistant results the other way. Its not only a matter of degree, but a matter of personal bias. If you're saying certain staff members, one of them being Unne, who I'm under the impression you really want to remain on staff, need to either change their views on swearing or get off staff, I don't know what to tell you. Especially since you already stated you're not at all willing to bring these issues up with them personally.

And we all know how far reporting posts gets. Thank the gods for the Ignore function.

I don't know of a case where a reported post went completely ignored, so excuse me for thinking that's a rediculous statement. Reported posts are dealt with as we see fit.

I honestly don't see any way to please you, Bleys. You're making a lot of complaints and rejecting every solution without offering your own.

EDIT: And what Del said. For at least the past few days you've seemed, uh... extra and seriously displeased. Its a bit worrysome.

[eestlinc]

Shlup: it's spelled ridiculous as is worthy of ridicule. No e in there.

Good thing I'm Chinese! *whew*

Yea, the Chinese are well educated but they eat dogs. Sounds like a break even to me...

I think the thing that stands out the most to me about this sort of discussion is that anyone who suggests that the staff has a bad policy or whatever is pretty much just shot down and told to get over it. I'm not saying the staff are the ShinRa or anything, but when dissent is squelched like that it breeds an undercurrent of anger that occasionally boils over like this. I get the impression that the staff doesn't really care what the non-staff members think about the forum rules. You certainly don't have to care, but I think it would help the general dynamic of the forums.

People talk about "the new anti-staff sentiment at EoFF" and I think this is a good illustration of where that comes from. When you set a certain small group apart as elite with statements like "we set the rules and you have to live with it" or "watch me post in closed threads just because I can, even though its usually spammy and there was a good reason it was closed in the first place" then divisons are created and resentment follows naturally.

[Shlup]

Shlup: it's spelled ridiculous as is worthy of ridicule. No e in there.

Thanks, eest. No one's corrected my poor spelling in public for at least a week. :weep:

I think the thing that stands out the most to me about this sort of discussion is that anyone who suggests that the staff has a bad policy or whatever is pretty much just shot down and told to get over it.

I don't think that's true, really. I mean, like in this case, I think our policy is bad. Its not perfect, no, but I haven't seen anyone suggest anything better.

I get the impression that the staff doesn't really care what the non-staff members think about the forum rules. You certainly don't have to care, but I think it would help the general dynamic of the forums.

We do care, and it hurts me when people don't think we do. Even if an idea gets shot down, we're often talking about it in the staff forum. We should probably make it more apparent that we care, but I think these kinds of threads wear staff members down pretty quick. I know many staff members would rather see this thread closed beacause we're so tired of hearing how much we suck when we really think we're doing our best. I mean, I don't think a lot of these threads are constructive, to be honest. Its a lot of complaining, and rarely is there a solution that we think would work. You can't fault us for turning down ideas that we honestly don't think are good, and a lot of them aren't good.

When you set a certain small group apart as elite with statements like "we set the rules and you have to live with it"

I have to agree with you there. I mean, its true, but that makes it sound like we just don't care and don't listen when we do, we just don't agree.

or "watch me post in closed threads just because I can, even though its usually spammy and there was a good reason it was closed in the first place" then divisons are created and resentment follows naturally.

Yes, that can be annoying too. Obviously we're not perfect, but I think we do a damn good job! I'm actually going to bring up some of these seperate issues in the staff forum then, since they don't have to do with the swear filter.

[eestlinc]

When longstanding members criticize staff it is usually meant constructively and we give it because we care too. It's not meant to insult (although some of us are more tactful than others). Being in a leadership position means being criticized (and often also being insulted). I think the more open the dialogue is, the more healthy the social dynamic of the forums.

So I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, Shlup. And I usually don't correct anyone's typing but you use that word a lot and it's kinda funny.

To get back to the topic a bit, I think the issue is not so much that we have a swear filter (although some of us wish that we didn't), but the way it is treated. I think we make too big a deal about it and try to "punish" people for fighting it.

I think the best solution would be to leave the swear filter as is, leave anything that makes it through as is or discreetly edit it, clean up anything horrible, warn/politely-ask-to-stop excessive offenders privately, and let it keep a low profile. Ideally, we should have a swear filter without it really being obvious we have one. I like less obvious filters like "smurf" better than skulls because skulls stand out while replacing the f-word with smurf often is indistinguishable from someone self-censoring themselves by using smurf in the first place. Eventually we might get to the point where people just always type smurf instead of the f-word anyway, although that might make Smurfette cry.

[Agent Proto]

eest's idea is very good. I approve!